(Swarajya October 2017)
Major General
Mrinal Suman
This happened in 1996. The erstwhile Soviet Union had
disintegrated and the economy of Russia was in dire financial straits. Under Boris
Yeltsin, Russia was headed for elections and the Sukhoi factory, located in his
constituency was on the verge of closure, rendering multitude of workers
jobless. It would have affected Yeltsin’s campaign adversely.
Invoking decades of close friendship and military assistance,
Yeltsin requested India’s caretaker prime minister Narasimha Rao for an advance
for the Sukhoi factory even before concluding the deal for the aircraft. It was
conveyed that such a gesture would be considered as a special favour. The
advance was to be subsequently adjusted against the final contract. Undoubtedly,
it would have been a patently irregular act but Rao realised the political and diplomatic
benefits for the country. In addition, Sukhoi was a first-rate aircraft. However, he knew that the
opposition parties would term it as a scam to fault his government.
With a view to pre-empt such a situation, it was decided to get
the main opposition party on board. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh were
invited by the then defence minister Mulayam Singh to attend a presentation on
the subject. They were taken in confidence and their concurrence obtained. Consequently,
the said irregular advance of USD 365 million never became a scam and no
controversy was ever generated. The country benefited by getting a modern
aircraft at highly favourable terms as Yeltsin remembered the favour done to
Russia in its hour of need.
Thus an act done in good faith by the government with national
interests in mind was supported by the opposition party as well. Vajpayee
understood the rationale and did not want to scuttle the deal for an excellent
aircraft. It was a pragmatic approach and the matter was never made an election
issue. The above incident has been recalled here to highlight the fact that the
national interests can best be served when both the ruling party and the
opposition parties rise above narrow party interests and work in tandem. Rao,
Vajpayee and Mulayam joined hands to ensure that the national interests remain
supreme.
Role of the Opposition Parties
India opted to follow the British parliamentary system wherein
the majority party is invited to form the government and is referred to as the
ruling party. The political party with the second-largest number of seats gets
the respectable tag of being the main opposition party. In Britain, the main
opposition party is formally known as Her
Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition or the Official
Opposition and the leader of this party takes
the title of Leader of the Opposition. It
demonstrates the importance that is assigned to the role of the opposition
parties in democracy.
Unfortunately, the term opposition is a misnomer with negative
connotations and has affected the psyche of the politicians. According to
lexicon, opposition means resistance, hostility, antagonism, antipathy, enmity,
objection, dissent, criticism, defiance, non-compliance, obstruction,
obstructiveness, counteraction, conflict, clash, difference, contrast,
disparity and antithesis. Unfortunately, in developing democracies, most
opposition parties interpret their role literally and have thus come to believe
that their sole role is to be anti-government; and India is no exception.
The most dominant role of the opposition in a democracy is that
of a 'watch dog'. It holds the government accountable through close oversight
of its functioning and making all shortcomings public. Regular scrutiny of executive’s
functioning and constant questioning helps vigilant opposition in constantly
reminding the ruling party of the promises made to the electorate while seeking
votes. An alert opposition is the best preventive antidote to governmental
slackness and complacence.
It is for the opposition to expose misuse of powers,
misdemeanours and financial irregularities and generate public pressure for prompt
action against the guilty. All acts of omission and commission must be
highlighted. Malicious witch-hunt to malign political opponents by planting
fabricated accusations through presstitute media must be avoided. Criticism
must always be well-informed and all allegations duly substantiated.
As the opposition always projects itself as a ‘government in
waiting’, it should be able to suggest alternate approach to the nation’s
problems through different policy statements and strategies. Through
well-reasoned debates in the parliament, it should apprise the people of its
views and ideologies. By studying and scrutinizing legislative proposal, it can
force the government to be transparent in its functioning.
An active and constructive opposition is the best guarantee of a
functional and healthy democracy. It imposes caution on the government against
despotic tendencies through public awareness. It ensures that the government
follows the provisions of the constitution in letter and spirit, thereby
looking after the interests of all segments of the populace.
Need for Mutual Accommodation
It should never be forgotten that both the ruling party and the
opposition are two pillars of a democracy. Both have important roles to play
and both have their responsibilities as well. As it happens between two
contestants in sports, once the match is over both shake hands and applaud each
other. There is no bitterness between the winner and the loser. The same should
apply to the elections and the accusations made against each other during the
heat of electioneering should be quickly forgotten. Howsoever antagonistic
mutual equation may be, basic decorum should never be lost sight of.
It is for the ruling party to make the first move towards reconciliation
with the opposition. Despite winning the elections, it should not develop an
attitude of arrogance. By engaging opposition in discussions, it can benefit
from their inputs to evolve well-rounded policies. The government should always
remember that the opposition members represent their respective constituencies
and hence are equally responsible for the betterment of the country. They are
not the enemies of the state who need to be shunned.
On the other hand, the opposition must be mature enough to
respect the verdict of the people and not be seen as a whining and disgruntled
bunch of losers. Instead of sulking and throwing tantrums like a poor loser, it
should perform the role of constructive opposition and thereby project itself
as a competent alternative, worthy of people’s trust in future elections.
The practice of forming shadow cabinet for focussed oversight
has been a success in Britain. India could also adopt the same. Instead of a
few spokespersons parroting standard party lines, it will be far better if the
talented opposition leaders are assigned ministry-specific oversight
responsibilities, thereby keeping the government alert through penetrating
observations.
Need to Shun Unbecoming Conduct
Parliament
provides an ideal forum for an effective opposition to corner the government. The opposition can demand that time be set
aside for discussing legislative proposals and other specific issues. The
question hour is another big tool and incisive questions can be asked to make
the government take note of their concerns. The system of parliamentary
committees can be intelligently exploited to suggest alternate courses. Apparently,
the opposition has to do considerable home-work to be able to put the
government on the defensive. It is the quality of debate and not the numerical
strength of the opposition that matters.
Unfortunately, the functioning of the parliamentary sessions has
degenerated to such an abysmal level that the public has started wondering whether
democracy is collapsing in the country. It is simply disgusting to see the
opposition members storming the well of the house, displaying placards, tearing
papers, shouting slogans and even resorting to heckling to prevent the house
from transacting any business.
A new issue is concocted everyday to disrupt the house. Worse
and quite unabashedly, they seem to be enjoying themselves; joking and goading
each other to shout louder. Smug smiles appear on their faces on forcing
adjournment of the house. Many people are demanding a change in the rules of
business. Any member entering the well of the house or shouting slogans or
displaying placards should attract automatic suspension for the rest of the
session with due deduction in pay and pension. The people of India are not
paying taxes to reward members for indulging in hooliganism.
A cartoon making the rounds in the social media shows a father
watching World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) channel and his young son querying
him, “Dad, why watch WWE when the parliament is in session? It has more action,
sloganeering, chaos, pandemonium and disorder. What excitement with the Chair
looking more helpless than the WWE referee!”
Another cartoon shows a young boy telling his father, “Why
engineer or doctor? I want to be a parliament member. It is the most lucrative
job in the world – enormous power, salaries and privileges with life time
pension – only for shouting slogans for a few days in a year”. Undoubtedly, the
cartoons reflect the feelings of the citizens of the country.
Finally
Ideological differences do not mean harming national interests.
The role of the opposition in parliament is basically to check the excesses of
the ruling or dominant party, and not to be totally antagonistic. The
opposition has every legal right to question the policies/bills that the
government proposes. However, it must respond to them on their merit. It is
understandably a tight rope walk : supporting the government boosts the
standing of the government while opposing it may show the opposition in a poor
light amongst the masses. But the, statesmanship means both constructive
support and well-reasoned criticism.
Let me end with a revealing experience on a flight to Delhi. It
was Jul 2014 and Modi had taken over a few months earlier. During casual conversation,
a co-passenger, who turned out to be a middle level opposition leader, declared
ominously, “Modi’s honeymoon period will not last for more than six months.
Thereafter, we will create so much social upheaval in the country that he would
regret coming to Delhi.” At that time, I dismissed it as an empty boast but now
in hindsight realise the viciousness of his statement. Do we see a pattern in
intolerance campaign; unrest in JNU and other universities; converting Rohith
Vermula’s unfortunate suicide into an attack on
dalits; ‘Not In My Name’ protests and beef controversies? It is anti-nationalism
at its worst.
In a democracy, the relationship between the electorate and the
elected leaders is of reciprocal trust. It is based on solemn commitments.
Leaders seek support on the basis of certain promises; people trust them and
vote them to power. As elected leaders are expected to deliver on the promises
made, people demand accountability at the end of their tenure in power. The
opposition should not act as an impediment and stall all progressive measures. *****
No comments:
Post a Comment